Still Moving to the Suburbs and Exurbs: The 2011 Census Estimates

The new 2011 Census Bureau county and metropolitan area population estimates indicate that Americans are staying put. Over the past year, 590,000 people moved between the nation's counties. This domestic migration (people moving within the nation) compares to an annual rate of 1,080,000 between the 2000 and 2009. Inter-county domestic migration peaked in 2006 at nearly 1,620,000 and has been falling since that time (Figure 1). The continuing low rate of domestic migration has been reinforced by the economic malaise that has kept job and income growth well below levels that would be expected in a more genuine recovery.

Yet the nation has continued to grow. With less domestic migration, natural growth (births minus deaths) and considerable, but slower international migration, growth over the past year has been more in proportion to total population. The movement between counties within major metropolitan areas has become less of a factor. Predictably, there the usual doom and gloom reports about suburbs and exurbs and how poorly they are doing compared to before, and how people are returning to the cities (Note 1). As usual, the data shows no such thing, as people continue to move from core counties in greater numbers than others move in (See Note 2 on county classifications).

Domestic Migration: Despite the higher gasoline prices and the illusions of a press that is often anti-suburban, both the suburbs and the exurbs continued to attract people from elsewhere in the nation. The core counties, which contain the core cities, continued to lose domestic migrants to other parts of the country, principally to the suburbs and the exurbs of the large metropolitan areas.

Over the past year, the core counties of major metropolitan areas lost 67,000 domestic migrants (people move between a metropolitan area and somewhere else in the nation). Suburban counties gained approximately 72,000 domestic migrants, while exurban counties gained 49,000 domestic migrants (Figure 2). Because of their lower population base, exurban counties had the highest relative rate of net domestic migration, at 0.34% of their 2010 population. This is more than three times the rate of the suburban counties (0.11%) and far higher than the minus 0.09% of the core counties (Figure 3). Thus, the overall slower rate of growth among exurban counties was due to a lower natural growth rate and less international migration, not the result of any losses to the core. The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the suburban counties.

Overall, the major metropolitan areas gained 48,500 domestic migrants between 2010 and 2011. By contrast, between 2000 and 2009, the major metropolitan areas lost, on average, nearly 200,000 domestic migrants to the rest of the nation each year. The huge domestic out migration in the last decade has been associated with the housing bubble. Less affordable housing markets lost 3.2 million domestic migrants between 2000 and 2009. More affordable markets gained 1.7 million domestic migrants. This was not enough to negate the losses in the higher cost markets, and major metropolitan markets lost 1.5 million domestic migrants overall.

Natural Growth: As the grim economic times induced people to stay put, core counties grew marginally faster than suburban and exurban counties principally because of higher natural growth rates, which is the net of births minus deaths. More than 70% of the higher population in core counties was from natural growth. Natural growth was less of a factor in the suburban counties, at 60%. In the exurban counties, natural growth accounted for only 47% of the population growth (Table 1). The higher core county natural growth rates are especially evident where there are large foreign born populations, due to their generally higher birth rates (such as Los Angeles, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Austin and Riverside-San Bernardino, as well as Raleigh and Salt Lake City).

International Migration: The other component of growth was international migration, which contributed 38% of the growth in core counties and 29% of the growth in suburban counties. International migration was much less important in the exurban counties, contributing only 15% of the growth (Table 1)

Table 1

Major Metropolitan Areas

Components of Population Change: 2010-2011: Summary by Sector

Net Domestic Migration

Net International Migration

Natural Increase (Births Minus Deaths)

Core Counties

-8.5%

37.6%

70.8%

Suburban Counties

11.2%

29.0%

59.8%

Exurban Counties

37.9%

14.5%

47.4%

Multi-County Major Metropolitan Areas

3.5%

32.1%

64.3%

Single County Major Metropolitan Areas

-10.9%

34.5%

76.7%

Major Metropolitan Areas with More Than 1 County

3.0%

32.2%

64.7%

Single County Major Metropolitan Areas: San Diego and Las Vegas

The Gainers: The fastest growing major metropolitan areas were dominated by the four largest Texas metropolitan areas. Austin (3.2%), Dallas-Fort Worth (2.0%), Houston (1.9%) and San Antonio (1.9%) were all among the five fastest growing. Raleigh placed second, with a one-year growth rate of 2.3%. The top five numeric gainers in domestic migration were in all in Texas or Florida --- Dallas-Fort Worth (39,000), Miami (36,000), Austin (31,000), Tampa-St. Petersburg (27,000) and Houston (21,000). The much improved housing affordability in Florida seems likely to be a factor in the recovery of Miami and Tampa-St. Petersburg. Further, Houston became the second Texas metropolitan area to exceed Philadelphia in population, following Dallas-Fort Worth in the last decade. Texas thus becomes the first state to place two metropolitan areas in the five largest in the nation (Table 2).

Table 2

Major Metropolitan Areas: Population

Population: 2010-2011

Metropolitan Area

2010

2011

Change

% Change

New York, NY-NJ-PA

18,919,649

19,015,900

96,251

0.51%

Los Angeles, CA

12,844,371

12,944,801

100,430

0.78%

Chicago, IL-IN-WI

9,472,584

9,504,753

32,169

0.34%

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX

6,400,511

6,526,548

126,037

1.97%

Houston. TX

5,976,470

6,086,538

110,068

1.84%

Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD

5,971,589

5,992,414

20,825

0.35%

Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV

5,609,150

5,703,948

94,798

1.69%

Miami, FL

5,578,080

5,670,125

92,045

1.65%

Atlanta, GA

5,286,296

5,359,205

72,909

1.38%

Boston, MA-NH

4,559,372

4,591,112

31,740

0.70%

San Francisco-Oakland, CA

4,343,381

4,391,037

47,656

1.10%

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

4,245,005

4,304,997

59,992

1.41%

Detroit. MI

4,290,722

4,285,832

(4,890)

-0.11%

Phoenix, AZ

4,209,070

4,263,236

54,166

1.29%

Seattle, WA

3,447,886

3,500,026

52,140

1.51%

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI

3,285,913

3,318,486

32,573

0.99%

San Diego, CA

3,105,115

3,140,069

34,954

1.13%

Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL

2,788,151

2,824,724

36,573

1.31%

St. Louis, MO-IL

2,814,722

2,817,355

2,633

0.09%

Baltimore, MD

2,714,546

2,729,110

14,564

0.54%

Denver, CO

2,554,569

2,599,504

44,935

1.76%

Pittsburgh, PA

2,357,951

2,359,746

1,795

0.08%

Portland, OR-WA

2,232,896

2,262,605

29,709

1.33%

San Antonio, TX

2,153,891

2,194,927

41,036

1.91%

Sacramento, CA

2,154,583

2,176,235

21,652

1.00%

Orlando, FL

2,139,615

2,171,360

31,745

1.48%

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN

2,132,415

2,138,038

5,623

0.26%

Cleveland, OH

2,075,540

2,068,283

(7,257)

-0.35%

Kansas City, MO-KS

2,039,766

2,052,676

12,910

0.63%

Las Vegas, NV

1,953,927

1,969,975

16,048

0.82%

San Jose, CA

1,841,787

1,865,450

23,663

1.28%

Columbus, OH

1,840,584

1,858,464

17,880

0.97%

Charlotte, NC-SC

1,763,969

1,795,472

31,503

1.79%

Austin, TX

1,728,247

1,783,519

55,272

3.20%

Indianapolis, IN

1,760,826

1,778,568

17,742

1.01%

Virginia Beach (Norfolk), VA-NC

1,674,502

1,679,894

5,392

0.32%

Nashville, TN

1,594,885

1,617,142

22,257

1.40%

Providence, RI-MA

1,601,065

1,600,224

(841)

-0.05%

Milwaukee, WI

1,556,953

1,562,216

5,263

0.34%

Jacksonville, FL

1,348,702

1,360,251

11,549

0.86%

Memphis, TN-MS-AR

1,318,089

1,325,605

7,516

0.57%

Louisville, KY-IN

1,285,891

1,294,849

8,958

0.70%

Oklahoma City, OK

1,258,111

1,278,053

19,942

1.59%

Richmond, VA

1,260,396

1,269,380

8,984

0.71%

Hartford, CT

1,212,491

1,213,255

764

0.06%

New Orleans, LA

1,173,572

1,191,089

17,517

1.49%

Raleigh, NC

1,137,297

1,163,515

26,218

2.31%

Salt Lake City, UT

1,128,269

1,145,905

17,636

1.56%

Buffalo, NY

1,135,293

1,134,039

(1,254)

-0.11%

Birmingham, AL

1,129,068

1,132,264

3,196

0.28%

Rochester, NY

1,054,723

1,055,278

555

0.05%

Total

167,462,456

169,067,997

1,605,541

0.96%

Data derived from US Bureau of the Census

Major Metropolitan Areas: Over 1,000,000 Population

The Losers: Four metropolitan areas, Detroit, Cleveland, Providence and Buffalo suffered small population losses. Pittsburgh had a small gain, but was alone in having an excess of deaths over births. New York again led the nation in its net domestic migration loss, at 99,000. Chicago lost 54,000 and Los Angeles lost 51,000 residents to other areas of the country between 2010 and 2011, while Detroit lost 24,000. Domestic migration data is available for New York City because it is composed of five counties. New York City lost 57,000 domestic migrants (Table 3).

Table 3

Major Metropolitan Areas

Components of Population Change: 2010-2011

Net Domestic Migration

Net International Migration

Natural Increase (Births Minus Deaths)

Total Components of Change (Note)

New York, NY-NJ-PA

(98,975)

83,322

112,336

96,683

Los Angeles, CA

(50,549)

54,725

96,150

100,326

Chicago, IL-IN-WI

(53,908)

24,422

61,483

31,997

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX

39,021

23,291

63,504

125,816

Houston. TX

21,580

24,105

64,363

110,048

Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD

(13,133)

11,413

22,769

21,049

Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV

21,517

24,872

48,235

94,624

Miami, FL

36,191

35,215

20,440

91,846

Atlanta, GA

12,419

17,370

42,908

72,697

Boston, MA-NH

(1,627)

15,494

18,143

32,010

San Francisco-Oakland, CA

5,880

17,996

23,939

47,815

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

15,131

9,065

35,826

60,022

Detroit. MI

(24,170)

7,468

11,734

(4,968)

Phoenix, AZ

5,585

15,866

32,847

54,298

Seattle, WA

17,598

12,228

22,280

52,106

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI

536

7,832

24,296

32,664

San Diego, CA

816

9,591

24,703

35,110

Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL

27,157

6,857

2,318

36,332

St. Louis, MO-IL

(10,260)

2,671

10,256

2,667

Baltimore, MD

(1,341)

5,004

10,941

14,604

Denver, CO

19,565

5,204

19,997

44,766

Pittsburgh, PA

3,740

1,426

(3,260)

1,906

Portland, OR-WA

11,388

4,806

13,511

29,705

San Antonio, TX

19,515

3,841

17,486

40,842

Sacramento, CA

2,856

6,173

12,659

21,688

Orlando, FL

10,394

9,767

11,557

31,718

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN

(7,149)

2,152

10,624

5,627

Cleveland, OH

(12,521)

1,896

3,344

(7,281)

Kansas City, MO-KS

(2,820)

3,009

12,705

12,894

Las Vegas, NV

(6,353)

8,007

14,395

16,049

San Jose, CA

(2,704)

11,072

15,376

23,744

Columbus, OH

2,219

3,329

12,390

17,938

Charlotte, NC-SC

13,778

4,581

13,038

31,397

Austin, TX

30,669

6,134

18,085

54,888

Indianapolis, IN

1,940

2,953

12,827

17,720

Virginia Beach (Norfolk), VA-NC

(7,086)

2,382

10,044

5,340

Nashville, TN

9,323

3,015

9,867

22,205

Providence, RI-MA

(6,254)

2,487

2,940

(827)

Milwaukee, WI

(4,862)

1,796

8,384

5,318

Jacksonville, FL

2,911

1,935

6,691

11,537

Memphis, TN-MS-AR

(2,933)

1,841

8,615

7,523

Louisville, KY-IN

1,886

1,711

5,400

8,997

Oklahoma City, OK

8,746

2,228

8,904

19,878

Richmond, VA

1,546

1,965

5,519

9,030

Hartford, CT

(4,749)

3,066

2,493

810

New Orleans, LA

10,153

1,563

5,630

17,346

Raleigh, NC

13,262

3,228

9,608

26,098

Salt Lake City, UT

915

3,090

13,674

17,679

Buffalo, NY

(2,558)

1,185

176

(1,197)

Birmingham, AL

(2,452)

1,245

4,421

3,214

Rochester, NY

(3,320)

1,235

2,650

565

Total

48,513

517,129

1,039,221

1,604,863

3.0%

32.2%

64.8%

100.0%

Data derived from US Bureau of the Census

Major Metropolitan Areas: Over 1,000,000 Population

Excludes San Diego and Las Vegas, which have only a single county

Captive v. Discretionary Markets? One year's data does not make a trend, especially in unusual times. Until the nation returns to normal economic growth, many young who would otherwise move are staying put, as well as young families that would be looking for larger houses. The driving factor in the more modest domestic migration trends observed today could well be necessity rather than desire.

Note 1: It is a misconception that suburbs and exurbs have grown principally because people have moved from cities. In fact, most suburban and exurban growth has been from smaller towns and rural areas. See Cities and Suburbs: The Unexpected Truth. Components of change data (domestic migration, international migration and natural growth) is available only at the county level. Thus, city or municipality data is only available where a municipality and a county are combined.

Note 2: The core county contains all or most of the largest historical core municipality (see Suburbanized Core Cities) in the metropolitan area, except in New York, where all five counties that comprise the city of New York are classified as core counties. The suburban counties are those designated by the Bureau of the Census as central counties, but exclude the core counties. The exurban counties are as classified by the Bureau of the Census.

Note 3: The largest historical core municipalities comprise slightly more than 55 percent of the core county population (both figures combined).